Patna High Court
Brajesh Yadav @ Brajesh Kumar YadavversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- BAIL REJECTED
- Bench
- SATYAVRAT VERMA
Holding
The Court denied the petitioner's application for regular bail.
Summary
Brajesh Yadav applied for regular bail in a case involving offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Arms Act, alleging false implication based on a co-accused's confessional statement. The petitioner has three prior cases and was arrested on 17-12-2025 after a police raid that recovered arms and cartridges. He argued that the confessional statement lacks evidentiary value and that he would not abscond if released. The State highlighted the earlier rejection of anticipatory bail, the inconsistency in the petitioner's claim of antecedents, and the risk of absconding. After hearing both sides, the Court declined to grant bail, directing that the petitioner may renew his application after charge framing.
Issues considered
- Whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner given the nature of the offences and his antecedent record
- Whether a co-accused's confessional statement can substantiate the charge against the petitioner for bail considerations
- Whether the risk of absconding justifies denial of bail
Legislation cited
- Arms Act — s. 25(1-B)a, 26, 27, 35
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita — s. 109(1), 111, 132, 310(4), 310(5)
Subjects
- bail
- criminal procedure
- anticipatory bail
- confessional statement
- arms possession
- prior convictions
- risk of absconding
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.20904 of 2026
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-10 Year-2025 Thana- AMARPUR District- Banka
======================================================
Brajesh Yadav @ Brajesh Kumar Yadav Son of Sachitanand Yadav @
Sachidanand Yadav Resident of Village- Barmasiya (Badi Jankipur), P.S.-
Amarpur, District- Banka
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ajay Mukherjee
For the Opposite Party/s : Ms.Rina Sinha
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA
ORAL ORDER
2 11-05-2026 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The petitioner seeks bail in Amarpur PS Case No.
10 of 2025, registered for the offences punishable under
Sections 310(4), 310(5), 132, 109(1) and 111 of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita and Sections 25(1-B)a, 26, 27 and 35 of Arms
Act.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has antecedent of three cases and was arrested on 17-
12-2025 and the informant alleges that based on information,
the house of Jayant Yadav was raided from where Shiv Shakti
Yadav and Pankaj Kumar were arrested and from their
possession, arms and live cartridges along with a fired cartridge
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20904 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
2/3
were discovered as detailed in the FIR and the apprehended
accused in their confessional statement disclosed the name of
Gaurav Chaudhary, petitioner and others, who fled from the
place of occurrence, when police arrived.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
petitioner has been falsely implicated in the instant case by the
informant. It is next submitted that petitioner was not arrested
from the spot and his name transpired in the confessional
statement of apprehended-accused in police custody which does
not have any evidentiary value. It is also submitted that if
privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner will not abscond .
5. Learned A.P.P. for the State vehemently opposes
the prayer for bail of the petitioner and submits that petitioner
had earlier moved before this Court seeking anticipatory bail by
filing Cr. Misc No. 24499 of 2025 and the same came to be
rejected by an order dated 2-5-2025, but then in Cr. Misc No.
24499 of 2025, the petitioner had pleaded that he has antecedent
of one case when in the instant regular bail application, it is
pleaded that petitioner has antecedent of three cases, which
amply demonstrates that petitioner on earlier occasion had not
approached the Court with clean hand. It is also submitted that if
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.20904 of 2026(2) dt.11-05-2026
3/3
privilege of regular bail is granted to the petitioner, the
petitioner may abscond.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties,
the Court is not inclined to release the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the prayer for bail of the petitioner is rejected.
7. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to
renew his prayer for bail after framing of charge.
(Satyavrat Verma, J)
Sumit/-
U T
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.